I found this on another forum, and wanted to know other folks' reaction to this thought process. God Bless!

Quote

Many of you know this story well, it is both a story and a parable from the Old Testament.

Two women laid claim to a baby. They went to Solomon to decide who would have the baby.

Solomon said to cut the baby in half at which one woman agreed and the other did not, saying she would rather not have the baby that he might survive. Solomon called this woman the mother and banished the other in shame.

Two years ago Israel offered up half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The Palestininas said no. They said that it was all or nothing and if Israel would break up the city then it was not the true mother of Jerusalem and used Solomon's words. The Israelis were shamed away from the bargaining table.

The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church both lay claim to being the true Church. The Catholic Church offers to change (mutilate the current views of today) the papacy and other parts of its dogma to make itself in communion with the others. The Orthodox Church says it is the fullness of the Faith or nothing. The one that stands tall in asking for all or nothing is the Mother. The one that will mutilate to have some is not. And as we know the Church is our Mother. Which one says fullness of Faith or nothing? The Orthodox Church.

This thread makes it painfully clear to all that will open their eye and ears I think.

Orthodoxy is a package deal and holistic. Reminds me of what Bishop Kallistos wrote, regarding the Anglicans' and Orthodox' very different approaches. Actually he was quoting Michael Ramsey, perhaps the last orthodox Anglican archbishop of Canterbury (1960s). The Orthodox asks, 'Do you accept the entire faith and practice of the Church, including Mariology, devotion to the saints and icons?' To which the Anglican answers, 'Why, yes, I suppose so, as long as we confine what is necessary to what can be found and proved in scripture'. (A classic Protestant reductionistic answer.) Which to the Orthodox is unacceptable, like a splodge on a painting ruining the whole picture.

[The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church both lay claim to being the true Church. The Catholic Church offers to change (mutilate the current views of today) the papacy and other parts of its dogma to make itself in communion with the others. ]

That remains to be seen. There have been mixed signals coming from the Roman Catholic Churches regarding what is negiotable. Some Roman Catholics claim everythng, some Roman Catholics say everything but Papal Supremacy. Which is it really?

Just as there are RC's here and elsewhere that claim the Pope has asked the Orthodox Catholics how the invision the position of the Pope in a reunified Church and the OC's have not responded. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Orthodox Catholic response to this question is -

Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered PRIMUS INTER PARES serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up OVER the Church as ruler whose DIAKONIA is conceived through legalistic categories of power and jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25-27).

Now, if I can open an Orthodox book and find this reply, it is hard for me to believe that it hasn't been passed to the Pope and the Vatican.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I've heard other parables along those same lines but they did not let either the Catholics or the Orthodox off the hook. I'd rather think the more appropriate analogy would be both are like spoiled children whose mother, the unified Church, must discipline. Sadly, she has been so weakened over the years that she can't get the attention of either of her spoiled children.

<<I'd rather think the more appropriate analogy would be both are like spoiled children whose mother, the unified Church, must discipline. >>

The problem with that though is it says there is no one true Church. Tradition promises us that the True Church will always remain and Saint Vincent gives the most excellent definition as to what constitutes the True Church. Even if there is one Orthodox bishop left - he and his flock will be the fullness of the Church and not just a tiny fragment.

Hypo-Ortho

"The problem with that though is it says there is no one true Church."

Ah, but you are wrong. You are on the section of this forum dedicated to that one true Church.

Orthodoxy must teach right worship and right belief.

Catholicism must teach unity.

We have both. Our existence does not depend upon either of you. But our Lord has established that both of you will someday be one.

Dan Lauffer, Byzantine Catholic (Orthodox in Communion with Rome)

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dan, YOU have *BOTH*?? Your existence does *not* depend upon either Roman Catholicism *OR* Orthodoxy??? Are you implying that Byzantine Catholicism then now needs neither Rome *NOR* Orthodoxy, but has now evolved into an entirely "different creature," some sort of hybrid, self-existing creature?? Do most of your Byzantine Catholic compatriots agree with this assessment? Would they ever forego the Papacy in it present form? "Orthodox in communion with Rome" that doesn't need Rome? Illogical.

abdur

I can no more claim to be Eastern Orthodox if I embrace the post-schism DOGMA of Papal Infallibility than I can claim to be Catholic while rejecting the DOGMA--which is heretical.

Orthodox do not treat DOGMA IN A CAVALIER manner since it is GOD-BREATHED DIVINE TRUTH. EITHER 'Yea or Ney' since there are no options as protestantizers and those who practice faux Orthodoxy would--delusionally--believe.

Well, when I originally saw Abdur's new avatar, I thought I'd drop him a private message to let him know he had chosen my bishop and family friend. He had originally asked me to post some information about him publically, but I didn't know how to go about it out of the blue, so I just gave him an incident I remembered hearing. But since he's brought it up, I guess I can fill in the details.

In India, bishops are treated with great respect. Among the ways this is shown is by either buying them a really classy car for their personal use, or by driving them around in such. So, for instance, a diocese might buy its bishop a Mercedes so that the bishop's secretary (usually a young deacon) could drive him around. If this is not possible, then someone with a classy car like that would drive him around on important duties. So if the bishop was going to visit one of the parishes in his diocese on a Sunday, someone from that parish with a nice car would pick him up and drive him to and fro. Of course, who wouldn't get used to this sort of regal treatment? So now it is common for our bishops to ride around in style, and some almost expect it or take it as a given.

Many years ago, before my father married my mother, he was waiting for a bus in India. Lots of people ride the bus in India, but it is not usually the chosen means of transportation for "higher ups" who generally prefer to ride in style befitting their status (even priests can be seen driving around in nice cars or on nice motorcycles in their white cassocks). So imagine his surprise -- and admiration -- when he saw this very bishop walking to the bus stop, dressed exactly as you see him in the picture, and waiting there with him -- a common man -- so that they could both take the bus to their respective destinations.

My father never forgot that, and when the bishop was assigned here, he was happy about the new appointment. He is a very simple man. He fasts pretty much daily, not taking in more than he needs to both sustain himself and keep his diabetes in check. He does not sleep at night, and so he sometimes looks tired during the day. What is he doing when he's not sleeping? Look at his hands...they are calloused from the many hours (sleeptime, for most of us) which he spends fully prostrate in prayer. Very traditional, he is, but also very modern. He promotes our language, but is not afraid to use English even more than some of our priests, knowing that the second generation here is the future of the Church in this country. He makes himself available to the youth in particular. He is always on the road visiting one church or the other. When someone is sick, he'll go visit them personally (this happened twice with my father, and after he died, he came to visit us at home, not having been present for the funeral because of a meeting of the Holy Synod). Under him, quite a few young men of my generation have been ordained to the diaconate and are pursuing the priesthood, and there are quite a few who are also interested in this. I even hear of plans for a seminary here, which was never thought of before him.

These are just some things about him. I don't really have time, nor would I know what to talk about, to go into more depth. But maybe these things will be enough to give you a better picture of who it is Abdur has in his profile. Maybe his example is one your own Churches have. He's not the greatest of administrators (then again, what true monk ever wanted to be in charge of things?), but he has what our Churches and people need most of all: life-transforming holiness.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

Dan, are you implying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church?

If I may offer some thoughts, I think Dan was implying this, but perhaps not in the way we might have taken this to mean when we first heard it.

Certainly, the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But today, Roman Catholics claim to be that Church, and Orthodox Catholics claim to be that Church. Will the real Catholic Church please stand up? Who is right?

At this point, I honestly don't know if it matters (disclaimer: I believe the Orthodox are right, and I do believe that all these years later, the true Church has always existed, and didn't stop existing when East and West parted ways). We both profess a belief in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We both acknowledge that at one point in time we were one. We both (at least nominally) desire reunion. I think that requires our acknowledging that the current state of affairs, with both of us remaining separate, is not the way the Catholic Church used to be, and is not the way Christ willed it back when He walked our earth or the way He wills it now.

Acknowledging that, it could be said, if understood properly, that we are both "off" centre when it comes to where God wants us, and we both have some way to go to get back to that original state in which the Catholic Church found itself, with both East and West living in harmonious communion. How we go about this process of reconciliation and reunion? Who has to give up what? What needs to be done? I don't have those answers. But I do know that we need to be one again.

With that said, I respectfully disagree with Dan's suggestion that the Eastern Catholic Churches possess at this point in time the reality which Rome and the Orthodox Churches long for; namely, unity. The concept may be nice, and some of the characteristics of that unity might be there, but the reality certainly is not that the Eastern Catholic Churches are ahead of the game, and the rest of us need to catch up. Eastern Catholic Churches have varying degrees of autonomy in relation to Rome, but from my limited experience with them, even the most independent and autonomous are still subject to (i.e. under) Rome.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 04:03:21 PM by Mor Ephrem »

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

"And how do you have unity if you are not in communion with Orthodoxy?"

On the contrary. Orthodoxy cannot have unity unless it is in communion with the Eastern Catholic Church.

More seriously, the arguments put forward by both groups about who is the true church and who is not are in a word "pathetic". They are also worldly.

On another note: I think Mor Ephrem shares my sorrow over what has happened to your old board.

Dan Lauffer

BTW I hadn't read Mor Ephrem's or Serge's comments before answering Nik so I will add a note here.

Thank you Serge. You are quite right in your assessment...I pray so that I will ever be more a man of integrity.

Mor Ephrem,

I do agree with you, and I do admit that the Eastern Catholic Churches as a whole are not ahead of the curve when it comes to truth and unity. However, some of us, and that is why I chose Eastern Catholic instead of Orthodox, believe that we must live forward. We must live as if the Church were whole. We must live as if the Latin Church didn't have a tyrants mentality. Will things ever change if someone doesn't live this way?

There may be a day when I say "enough is enough". That Latin bravado is beyond tolerating. It helps that I'm the professor in my Catholic Theology class. I can point out things that many of my "Catholic is Roman (Western) Catholic" students don't recognize. I do instruct them.

Finally, I believe I am as "agnostic" about the future as my dear friend Mor "Philip" Ephrem has indicated he is.

On another note: I think Mor Ephrem shares my sorrow over what has happened to your old board.

Dear Dan,

Yes indeed it is sad. I believe that Slave, Anastasios, Mor, Serge and I have all been banned there. Have you yet? Of course some the posters that aren't anti-Eastern like their Alex, probably have no clue about the unfair things happening to Easterners there. God Bless!

Ah, but you are wrong. You are on the section of this forum dedicated to that one true Church.

Orthodoxy must teach right worship and right belief.

Catholicism must teach unity.

We have both. Our existence does not depend upon either of you. But our Lord has established that both of you will someday be one.

This sounds nice, but it not only is incomprehensible theology (or more specifically, ecclessiology), but it's simply not the case. Though the Pope says we're his Church's other lung, the truth is that Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism (or those who pay lip service to RC doctrines as the Uniates do) are two different animals.

Either one, or the other, or neither, represents the Church of Christ. We are well beyond the stage of simple estrangement of heirarchs; the schism has become deeply rooted, and both parties have clearly gone their separate ways. As an Orthodox Christian, I hold to the informed opinion that it is Rome that has gone "off the track" as well as those who are in communion with her. Such persons are not part of the true Church of Christ, and there is a need to reconcile them.

This is not "scholasticism" or "legalism"; while it's good to not fall into the excesses of papist legalism, it's also obscene to turn Orthodoxy into a stereo-type, and pretend that the true faith is in fact the enemy of common sense. Rules of non-contradiction (leaving room for paradox, obviously) are no more antithetical to Orthodox thought than those pertaining to gravity or the speed of light.

I also share another user's concern; are you saying "Eastern Catholicism" is another creature entirely? Perhaps it is the "true church" we all ought to belong to and be in communion with (and thus restore our status)? If not that, I'm not sure what you are saying.

Yes indeed it is sad. I believe that Slave, Anastasios, Mor, Serge and I have all been banned there. Have you yet? Of course some the posters that aren't anti-Eastern like their Alex, probably have no clue about the unfair things happening to Easterners there. God Bless!

"The problem with that though is it says there is no one true Church."

Ah, but you are wrong. You are on the section of this forum dedicated to that one true Church.

Orthodoxy must teach right worship and right belief.

Catholicism must teach unity.

We have both. Our existence does not depend upon either of you. But our Lord has established that both of you will someday be one.

Dan Lauffer, Byzantine Catholic (Orthodox in Communion with Rome)

That is nice in theory and all, but reality has to play a role in Theology as well. Others have noted the obvious concern about such an odd statement as how you define true church. If Roman Catholics want re-union they can do exactly what I am in the process of - converting. By being in communion with Rome you ipso facto (whether you like it or not) proclaim Vatican I and other impoius errors. You can't have it both ways. We can't settle for a temporal solution that is political at all. We need a church structure that fits the definition of Saint Vincent - and modern Rome doesn't fit. Just my opinion though.

I used to run a Catholic site and continued to run it too far into my journey into Orthodoxy I'm afraid. This seems to have soured a few people there on both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, including at least one of the parties that now run it. God Bless!

I wasn't banned. I got so exasperated that I unregistered. Denise kept deleting my posts. So I left. The forum is Your Catholic.com. Nik used to own it. He allowed for a balanced discussion of East and West. Now it is all West.

For those who think my "dreamy" ecclesiology too ironic to be real I say, "Oh, for the certitude of youth." Bishop Justinian of Romanian Orthodoxy said that the biggest mistake the Church ever made was to institutionalize Jesus. I agree.

At this point I'm happily ensconsed in a BC Church in Homer Glen. I'm praying for the day when I can go over to my brother Father Andrew Harrison's OCA parish in Palos Hills, Illinois and share Eucharist with him. I suppose that scandalizes some of the posters here.

Dan Lauffer

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

For those who think my "dreamy" ecclesiology too ironic to be real I say, "Oh, for the certitude of youth." Bishop Justinian of Romanian Orthodoxy said that the biggest mistake the Church ever made was to institutionalize Jesus. I agree.

At this point I'm happily ensconsed in a BC Church in Homer Glen. I'm praying for the day when I can go over to my brother Father Andrew Harrison's OCA parish in Palos Hills, Illinois and share Eucharist with him. I suppose that scandalizes some of the posters here.

Dan Lauffer

Not at all, Dan, provided that you share the same Holy Orthodox Faith first!

I have not been banned. I still read some of the posts on your old board Nik, but I don't post much if at all. I plan on making one grand finale of a post in a few weeks or months. I'll give ya'll the heads up when I do. It should make for an interesting read to go there and read it.

The yourcatholic.com board is now heavily neocon and indeed populated by charismatics and assorted other kooks.

Nik, are you a Catechumen yet?

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.